Bowen v. Roy

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Bowen v. Roy
ArgueDate=January 14
ArgueYear=1986
DecideDate=June 11
DecideYear=1986
FullName=Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Stephen J. Roy, et al.
USVol=476
USPage=693
Citation=106 S. Ct. 2147; 90 L. Ed. 2d 735; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 52; 54 U.S.L.W. 4603
Prior=Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Subsequent=
Holding=The statutory requirement that a state agency utilize Social Security numbers in administering the programs in question does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. That Clause affords an individual protection from certain forms of governmental compulsion but does not afford an individual a right to dictate the conduct of the Government's internal procedures. The Government's use of a Social Security number for appellees' child does not itself impair appellees' freedom to exercise their religion.
SCOTUS=1981-1986
Majority=Burger (parts I, II)
JoinMajority=Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor
Concurrence=Burger (part III)
JoinConcurrence=Powell, Rehnquist
Concurrence2=Blackmun
Concurrence3=Stevens
Concurrence/Dissent=O'Connor
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=Brennan, Marshall
Dissent=White
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. I, Free Exercise Clause

"Bowen v. Roy", 476 U.S. 693 (1986)ref|citation, was a United States Supreme Court case which helped to establish limits on freedom of religion in the United States.

The plaintiffs were Native American parents who had applied for financial assistance under a U.S. government welfare program. One of the requirements to receive benefits under this program was that the applicants provide Social Security numbers for their children and themselves. The plaintiffs refused to do so, as they claimed this would violate their religious beliefs; their belief was that using a technologically-derived number to identify her would diminish her spiritual uniqueness. When the government issued and used a Social Security Number for her without their consent, in violation of the Privacy Act, they filed suit, claiming infringement of their right to practice their religion.

The Supreme Court ruled that, the government's use of a Social Security number for the child did not impair her family's freedom to "believe, express and exercise" their religion, the plaintiffs' claim was without merit. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger noted that "never to our knowledge has the Court interpreted the First Amendment to require the Government itself to behave in ways that the individual believes will further his or her spiritual development or that of his or her family." By a plurality decision, it was remanded back to the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, for a hearing on whether the government complied with the Privacy Act in issuing and using a Social Security number.

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 476

External links

*ussc|476|693|Text of the opinion from Findlaw.com
* [http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/bowe_v_roy.html Bowen v. Roy] at the University of Virginia